Is that last sentence trying to say, "What possible harm could a false allegation produce (to a man) if it's not formally reported to police?"

Well gosh, here's one subtle difference: their fellow classmates are enrolled in college... as opposed to, you know, firing inaccurately into crowds of people in South Central and calling it "putting in work".

Which does seem to raise a related question, namely: "Why must we discipline people for parties that mock violent criminals?"

It's not enough. These misguided frat members would benefit from a gang-sensitivity class.

If Team Geragos has half a brain, they'll bring in outside counsel to handle this mess — preferably someone that's actually good.

I think it's pretty reasonable for any entity to have a "great deal at stake" when it's accused, in a national publication, of using gang rape as a condition of membership.

They've been in business for a whole year-plus, have two locations, and are marginally profitable.

"Remove the leeching class rich from your business model..."

Two locations, and a one-year track record of wavering profitability.

I think we can all agree — probably unanimously, even — that she's a superb fit for the culture at Jezebel.

"This is what a professional journalistic correction looks like..."

"The incidence of false accusations must presumably be more common in contexts where perjury is not an issue, surely?"

Well, when Anna was biting the heads off those questioning the story, she called it "career ending" for Erdeley if it were proven wrong or retracted.

Where I come from, part on an apology is actually communicating directly with the person/people you've wronged.

So far as I can tell, Anna's sole direct communication to Robby Soave in the aftermath has been the tweet-comment "Sure you are" when he said he was glad the incident didn't happen as described.

I think you're talking about a gamble of staff time and resources — and to an extent, the perception that the Post was pursuing a story on a "third-rate burglary" out of institutional/anti-Nixon bias. If so, we agree somewhat.

In retrospect, the hyperactive elf might have been a tip-off.

"Imagine how easily Watergate could've turned out false given that it was literally ONE source."

Look, this is just a nonsensical approach: you can't hold accusations constant — by defining them as the provably wrong percentage of formal charges — and then let everything else float upward.

The only thing more cringe-inducing, of course, might be the phrase "tacky as hell".